Except we're trusting ML to perform surgery, choose conviction sentencing, evaluate job CVs, determine acceptable marriage partners (why not?), determine who can have kids (why not?), determine who gets into college (why not?), determine who gets a loan (why not?), determine who gets to work on ML (why not?). And drive cars.
> The data subject shall have the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...
Question on your snippet though. It says "subject to a decision based solely on automated processing ..."
Since I do live in the consumer's paradise I'm naturally suspicious. I wonder if people will sometimes be subject to decisions based solely on automated processing, and if they don't bother to ask for a human in the loop after the automated decision, then that's that.
And how would you even know, one way or the other?
Another example is roads, where the design of the road allows one to turn into an opposing vehicle. The road itself is not deciding to turn your car into a semi trailer because it looks like sky, but an ML driven car has, multiple times.
I don't even own a Tesla, and I resent having to participate in its beta program. ML in a car is quite different from a brake recall, or even a stuck accelerator software recall.